This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Man ordered from home on Quebec gold mine

In fact, most of the people that posted on this thread, saying this is bad, are supporters of the government doing what it wants, "for the public good".

It's not cut and dry for me. I believe some government regulation is necessary, but in my lifetime I have seen the rights of the individual being repeatedly stepped on in favor of corporations and profits. I have seen government become more and more hesitant to create laws that benefit all of society because it might be "bad for business". I think a healthy economy is important but I think the rights of the individual are more important than that.

And in this case, I cannot comprehend how the property rights of one person can be stepped on so that gold can be harvested. That was the kind of thing I saw in China. The government would come in and give people a few days to leave before the houses were bulldozed for development. I would think to myself, "I'm glad I live in Canada where this kind of crap can't happen." Now, as of today, there is NO difference between Canada and China, if a man can be kicked off his land against his will and property rights in the name of obscene profits.

Our countries are selling out. Bit by bit. At least you guys in America have guns so you could try to have a revolution if you wanted to. We are just screwed up here.

Re: Man ordered from home on Quebec gold mine

Originally Posted by apdst

Did a company order him out, or did the government order him out?

Both. The company made him an offer. When he refused it. The company took him to court and got the government to kick him out. Thus why I stated that both the government and the company conspired against him.

Peace is a lie. There is only Passion. Through Passion I gain Strength. Through Strength I gain Power. Through Power I gain Victory. Through Victory my chains are Broken. The Force shall free me.

Local government should not be allowed to abuse their power by keeping out stores that consumers want to shop in. Nor, of course, should Wal-Mart be allowed to use eminent domain laws, as it is trying to do in several states, to force property owners to sell their land. But given that it refrains from using eminent domain, we should welcome every store that Wal-Mart builds. We should thank this great company for being so good at giving customers what they want that they make huge profits, which enables them to build more stores, hire more employees, give more profit opportunities to suppliers and make even more customers happy.

Wal-Mart should not be feared but should be admired as an American ideal--a classic rags to riches story. It is the quintessential example of an innovator left free to function. Only in a country where individual rights--at least what's left of them--including the right to earn a profit, are recognized, could a company like Wal-Mart arise and prosper. Trying to stop Wal-Mart is not only morally wrong, it is un-American.

But an e-mail exchange obtained by Wal-Mart Watch and reported in the Orlando Sentinel, shows that Wal-Mart is playing both sides of the eminent domain fence by criticizing the practice in California and employing the practice in Florida. The exchange between the developer and local landowners details Wal-Mart’s threat to use eminent domain to seize local homeowners’ land for an 800,000 square-foot distribution center:

Our firm, which is the representative for Wal-Mart on this project, has talked with several local agencies relative to the projected market value for these aforementioned property parcels… In the event any of these property parcel owners are not willing to either sell, or to provide the needed r.o.w. (or) easement, our firm will ask the County to proceed with the necessary legal actions to secure those properties from the property owners to accommodate the public purpose needs to serve the planned project’s utility and road requirements.

City Officials in Alabaster, Alabama have slammed into a "Wal" of opposition to a Wal-Mart supercenter--especially over the potential use of eminent domain to force homeowners to sell out to the giant retailer. According to the Brimingham News, the city's lawyer claims Alabaster is not trying to condemn residential homes to make way for a Wal-Mart. The city is trying to convince a judge to dismiss a federal lawsuit that seeks to prevent the city from declaring the 10 acres in question as being blighted.

Is it so hard to imagine that the same Wally-world who overworks employees, buys merchandise built by 21st century slaves, has a practice of discriminating against women and provides few actual benefits for most of its workers would use practices like eminent domain? Seriously?

Peace is a lie. There is only Passion. Through Passion I gain Strength. Through Strength I gain Power. Through Power I gain Victory. Through Victory my chains are Broken. The Force shall free me.

Re: Man ordered from home on Quebec gold mine

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Both. The company made him an offer. When he refused it. The company took him to court and got the government to kick him out. Thus why I stated that both the government and the company conspired against him.

There's more to this story than that though. If Masse had hired a lawyer and worked through the court instead of listening to this Aucoin character he probably could have kept his land. Walking out of court because some guy who had been interrupting the judge tells you to is a bad way to get the court on your side.

Re: Man ordered from home on Quebec gold mine

Originally Posted by RightOfCenter

There's more to this story than that though. If Masse had hired a lawyer and worked through the court instead of listening to this Aucoin character he probably could have kept his land. Walking out of court because some guy who had been interrupting the judge tells you to is a bad way to get the court on your side.

I find it ridiculous that this even went to court. Heads should roll when a man is forced out of his land through tripartism.

Peace is a lie. There is only Passion. Through Passion I gain Strength. Through Strength I gain Power. Through Power I gain Victory. Through Victory my chains are Broken. The Force shall free me.

Re: Man ordered from home on Quebec gold mine

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I find it ridiculous that this even went to court. Heads should roll when a man is forced out of his land through tripartism.

And I agree with you. The land is his as far as I'm concerned. He certainly didn't do himself any favors though and is probably only going to get the 14,000 his house is worth rather than the 350,000 he could have got.

Re: Man ordered from home on Quebec gold mine

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Both. The company made him an offer. When he refused it. The company took him to court and got the government to kick him out. Thus why I stated that both the government and the company conspired against him.

Wait, was it the government of PQ or Canada that forced him out or the court ordering him out?

Whatever, the tradition under English common law has long been that the property you owned was yours and any and all resources under the surface of that land to the center of the earth was also your property. When did Canada abandon that element of English common law?

Re: Man ordered from home on Quebec gold mine

It's because of acts like these that I could never really support big industries. They find ways to take people from their homes in poor countries and can now do it in countries where a man and his property are supposed to be protected by laws. I do not doubt that the people who justify companies moving into the Amazon and uprooting thousands of people will find a way to justify this blatant abuse of the law but at the very least consider the possibility that if your land is ever found to be standing on a piece of land a company wants, they probably will get it from you one way or another.

This wasn't really about money for this guy. It was about principle. I wouldn't have moved out either. The environment is more valuable to me than the false and superficial value humans put on metals like gold. Hopefully he'll sue both the Canadian government AND this company for conspiring against him.

Your first sentence should have been aimed at the judge not the company. Sure the company is scum but they couldn't have done it without the governemnt.

Just like the government in the US could never have had the right to take your property without the liberal judges on the Supreme Court.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.John Adams